Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (12) TMI 299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng aside orders of the AO on his file on the point of limitation and on merits, assessee have requested to quash the assessment orders or on merit delete the addition made by the AO and restored by the learned CIT(A) on the file of the AO for redeciding the same. 3. Since there is no difference in the facts of these cases, so the facts in the case of Shri A.K. Modi are discussed, which indicate that the assessee had shown share income from M/s Modi Engineers. The assessee had also shown income from capital gains as also from salary. The assessee has further returned income from other sources. The assessment was made under s. 143(3) on 23rd March, 1990. Thereafter the matter went before the CIT(A) on the issue of standard deduction under s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the conclusion that the income was correctly shown/assessed, in the order sought to be rectified. No working is given as to how the AO has arrived at the figure of Rs. 2,83,415. Only the AO has given some details of multiplication from which nothing can be inferred and the assessee has contended that he has shown correct income and the same was correctly assessed by the AO under s. 143(3). The AO is found to have not dealt this contention of the assessee and he has also not controverted the arguments of the assessee. So, this issue was restored to the file of the AO for re-examination and fresh orders after allowing the assessee to have his say with further stipulation that the AO shall deal with each and every argument taken by the assesse .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it is submitted that the CIT(A) has grossly erred in restoring back the legal issue relating to challenge to the time barring action by the AO in passing order under s. 154 of the Act, which was the subject-matter of appeal before the learned CIT(A). When the learned AO has categorically held in the order passed under s. 154 that the time-limit for rectification of the order was to be calculated from the date of the order giving effect to the order of the learned CIT(A), whereas in which order giving appeal effect, no such issue was involved before the CIT(A) in the appeal against the original order under s. 143(3). In view of the specific and absolute finding given by the AO in the impugned order under s. 154. The learned CIT(A) was thus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... order of the AO with respect to salary income merged with the order of the first appellate authority and not the entire order. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Poonjabhai Vanmalidas vs. WTO 1978 CTR (Guj) 399 : (1978) 114 ITR 38 (Guj) and CIT vs. Sakseria Cotton Mills Ltd. (1980) 124 ITR 570 (Bom), so far as the merits of the case are concerned. 8. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the CIT(A) and pleaded that since the order of assessment is merged into the order of the CIT(A) in appeal filed against order under s. 143(3), therefore, the order of rectification passed by the AO is within stipulated time. Since the matter has been restored to the file of the AO in February, 1995, he must have decided the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d March, 1990 and not relatable to the appeal effect order passed on 9th Oct., 1991, as held by the AO. Since the rectification notice was issued beyond time-limit prescribed under s. 154, therefore, any order passed thereafter cannot be held to be a valid order. Since there is no dispute regading the dates of passing assessment order and the date of issue of notice under ss. 154-155 by the AO which is beyond the four years time period. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the AO could not pass any order after 31st March, 1994. As such, the order passed by the AO under s. 154 in all these three cases is quashed, being barred by time-limitation prescribed. Since the order is being quashed on legal issue of limitation, therefore, other .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates